Background The screening instrument for borderline personality disorder (SI-Bord) consists of a 5-item self-reported questionnaire on the key features of BPD from the DSM-5 using a 5-point Likert scale. This study investigated its validity and reliability in screening for BPD in university students. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted on a sample of university students in Thailand between November and December 2019. An online assessment gathered demographic data and results from the SI-Bord, the Perceived Stress Scale-10 (PSS-10) and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Participants whose SI-Bord scores were ≥ 1 were randomly selected to be interviewed and assessed for a BPD diagnosis by four psychiatrists using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders (SCID-II) as a reference point. An intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.925 (95% CI, 0.805–0.979) ensured inter-rater reliability between the four psychiatrists. The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the SI-Bord, as compared to that of the SCID-II, were determined to indicate the cut-off score. The Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) was analyzed to evaluate its diagnostic accuracy. Results The study included 342 students aged 18–25 years (the mean age was 20.25 ± 1.4 years), 80.4% of whom were female. Among the 68 participants selected for an online interview, 16 were diagnosed with BPD. The cut-off score of the SI-Bord was > 9, as suggested by the Youden index, yielding a sensitivity of 56.3% and a specificity of 92.3%. It had a positive predictive value of 69.2% and negative predictive value of 87.3%. The SI-Bord had adequate discriminative power between cases and non-cases of BPD, with the area under the ROC curve being 0.83. Cronbach’s alpha for the SI-Bord was 0.76, indicating acceptable internal consistency. The SI-Bord score was positively correlated to PHQ-9 and PSS-10 scores (r = 0.67 and r = 0.69, p < 0.001, respectively) and negatively correlated to MSPSS (r = − 0.50, p < 0.001). The prevalence of BPD in the sample was 6.4%, according to the cut-off score > 9. Conclusion The SI-Bord demonstrated good reliability and validity for screening BPD in university students. However, a study in non-Thai and other population groups should be warranted.

Suicidal ideation is a serious condition antecedent to suicidal attempts and is highly related not only to depression but also other psychosocial factors. This study aimed to examine the predictive effects of these potential factors for suicidal ideation among young adult university students. A cross-sectional survey was conducted on a sample of university students in Thailand. An online questionnaire employed the perceived stress scale-10 (PSS-10), the patient health questionnaire-8 (PHQ-8), the multidimensional scale of perceived social support (MSPSS), and a screening instrument for borderline personality disorder. An ordinal regression analysis was applied to determine the predictive effects of the independent variables. Of 336 students, the mean age was 20.26 ± 1.3 years, 80.4% of whom were female; 14.3% had suicidal ideation. The significant predictors of suicidal thoughts were perceived stress (AOR 1.11, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.22); depressive symptoms (AOR 1.16, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.22); borderline personality symptoms (AOR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.40); and perceived social support (AOR 0.97, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.00). Not only did depressive symptoms contribute to suicidal ideation but they also constituted important variables. Therefore, they should be included in intervention plans to prevent suicidality among university students.

Background: While perceived social support can mediate the relationship between perceived stress and depression, little is known about the differences between individuals with high and low borderline personality disorder symptoms (BPDS). This study aimed to investigate the associations among perceived stress, perceived social support, and depression, and compare low and high levels of BPDS. Methods. This cross-sectional analysis was a secondary analysis of data from the SI-Bord study. University students across Thailand completed a screening instrument for borderline personality disorder, the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), the Revised Thai Multi-dimensional Scales of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS), and the Patient-Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9. Mediation analysis using PROCESS was applied to test the direct and indirect effects of perceived stress on depression. Multigroup mediational analysis was adopted to compare low and high levels of BPDS. Results. The mean age of the 330 participants was 20.27 (SD, 1.4) and 80% were female. Significant correlations were observed between the PSS, MSPSS, and PHQ scores, with greater magnitude among the high-level BPDS group (p < 0.001). A significant direct effect on perceived stress and a significant indirect effect on depression through perceived social support were noted. Of all the sources of social support, only the significant others variable significantly differed between the two groups (p < 0.05). Conclusion. Perception of social support had a significant mediating role in perceived stress and depression. The magnitude of associations was remarkably high for individuals with high BPDS compared to those with low BPDS. Unlike those with low BPDS, all sources of social support were significant mediators between the two groups.

No abstract

Background: The screening instrument for borderline personality disorder (SI-Bord) consists of a 5-item self-reported questionnaire on the key features of BPD from the DSM-5 using a 5-point Likert scale. This study investigated its validity and reliability in screening for BPD in university students.Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on a sample of university students in Thailand between November and December 2019. An online assessment gathered demographic data and results from the SI-Bord, the Perceived Stress Scale-10 (PSS-10) and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Participants whose SI-Bord scores were ≥ 1 were randomly selected to be interviewed and assessed for a BPD diagnosis by four psychiatrists using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders (SCID-II) as a reference point. An intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.925 (95% CI, 0.805–0.979) ensured inter-rater reliability between the four psychiatrists. The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the SI-Bord, as compared to that of the SCID-II, were determined to indicate the cut-off score. The Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) was analyzed to evaluate its diagnostic accuracy.Results: The study included 342 students aged 18–25 years (the mean age was 20.25 ± 1.4 years), 80.4% of whom were female. Among the 68 participants selected for an online interview, 16 were diagnosed with BPD. The cut-off score of the SI-Bord was > 9, as suggested by the Youden index, yielding a sensitivity of 56.3% and a specificity of 92.3%. It had a positive predictive value of 69.2% and negative predictive value of 87.3%. The SI-Bord had adequate discriminative power between cases and non-cases of BPD, with the area under the ROC curve being 0.83. Cronbach’s alpha for the SI-Bord was 0.76, indicating acceptable internal consistency. The SI-Bord score was positively correlated to PHQ-9 and PSS-10 scores (r = 0.67 and r = 0.69, p < 0.001, respectively) and negatively correlated to MSPSS (r = − 0.50, p < 0.001). The prevalence of BPD in the sample was 6.4%, according to the cut-off score > 9.Conclusion: The SI-Bord demonstrated good reliability and validity for screening BPD in university students.